Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 85 of 448 (467072)
05-19-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by iano
05-18-2008 9:36 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
iano writes:
Gay marriage cannot produce children nor can it rear children in an arguably superior male/female domain (all things considered)
As has been pointed out, gay marriage can "produce" children.
Your statement that male/female partnership is better than male/male or female/female for raising children, is quite suspect.
Do you have information from scientific studies to back that statement up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by iano, posted 05-18-2008 9:36 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by subbie, posted 05-19-2008 1:16 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 148 of 448 (467401)
05-21-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Fosdick
05-20-2008 3:41 PM


Prejudicial policies approved
HM writes:
I don't care how you cut it. If a homosexual has a chance to have his or her condition reversed, and he or she declines the opportunity, then he or she is making a choice.
Are you suggesting that if a defining characteristic of a person is a matter of their choosing, then it is ok to enact prejudicial policies against that person?
Does that mean I can turn down a potential tenant because he is a Buddhist, or a Muslim? Can I also turn him down if he works as a lawyer or a plumber?
I didn't know I had that kind of freedom as a landlord. In fact, I was under the impression that this was kind of frowned upon by the State.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 3:41 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 2:56 PM LinearAq has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 150 of 448 (467404)
05-21-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Catholic Scientist writes:
Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman.
Could you point out what federal statute provides this definition? DOMA? Has that definition been provided in any other statute?
Do these thousands of laws state that the gender of the parties involved has any effect on the law's enactment? Couldn't the redefinition of marriage effectively change the other laws since they only refer to "marriage", and "spouse"?
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage.
I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed.
The only place in the license that mentions gender is...
quote:
When you sign this application, you are stating under penalty of perjury that the information you have provided is true and correct, that you are currently an unmarried male and unmarried female, and that there is no legal objection to the marriage.
There is nothing that says the woman cannot put her name in the groom's part of the form.
Adding "civil unions" to the mix for gay couples would require as much effort as just redefining marriage. Any gender specific laws would have to be changed in order to apply to civil unions, just like it would if marriage were redefined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2008 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024